1. If you ever said to someone going to the shops - "get me a coke or if they haven't got that I'll have a lemonade', then you understand the principle behind AV voting. It only sounds complicated if you explain it badly, which the No campaigners are doing on purpose (finding the most wordy academic text they can).
2. Simply rank the candidates in order 1,2,3 etc. You can put as few or as many preferences as you want. If you only want to choose one candidate, like you HAVE to under our present system first-past-the-post (FPTP), you can. The difference is that FPTP ONLY lets you choose one candidate which leads to more wasted votes and immense pressure to vote tactically which gives a distorted view of what people really want.
Imagine being a Tory living in Margaret Hodge's constituency of Barking and hating the Labour party but wanting to stop the BNP, to make your vote count you are forced to vote Labour otherwise your vote would be wasted and risk the BNP winning with a small share of the vote. This adds another vote to the Labour pile and gives the impression that this is total support for their policies, whereas almost the opposite is in fact the case from this voter and probably many others effectively forced to vote the same if they want their vote to count and stop the BNP.
But FPTP is even worse than this, because it may be that loads of people have changed their mind in the constituency since the last election (which is the only source of information tactical voters really have) and although extremely unlikely maybe your Labour vote might be wasted and another candidate might have been better placed to beat the BNP if you had voted for them instead, so it is possible the BNP candidate wins with a dismal 20 something percent of the vote on a low turnout just because the majority who dislike them had voted for a range of parties.
Think this can't happen? The BNP have won county councillor seats with just 29% of the vote under our present system. With AV you can vote with your heart and show your true first preference and so on. The Tory can stop the BNP with any one of his preferences, including showing that Labour were only his final preference but this still beats the BNP who he did not rank. AV does away with the electoral roulette that voters currently have to play under the present system of first-past-the-post (FPTP).
3. If you order a chicken curry at a restaurant, but are told that has sold out then decide to have a lasagne instead, you have only had one meal. The same is true for AV, only ONE of your preferences will count towards the end result. Don't be fooled by propaganda saying otherwise.
4. In every UK general election bar 1997 and 1983, it is predicted that AV would have distributed seats more in line with vote share, i.e. a more proportional or fairer result.
5. Australia has used AV for over 90 years with just one hung parliament from 38 elections. Our present system first-past-the-post has delivered five hung parliaments and three non-working majorities over a similar time-span. So to claim that AV will deliver more coalition government is not necessarily true. Both India and Canada use the Westminster system of first-past-the-post. Canada has now had five hung parliaments out of the last 8 elections and India has a 18 party ruling coalition.
6. NO2AV are claiming millions will have to be spent on counting machines. Australia has used AV for over 90 years and still doesn't use counting machines. NO2AV are just making things up. Australia is a massive country with much larger constituencies yet they manage to get the result mostly announced on the night of the election.
"Where most UK constituencies would deal with 30-40,000 votes, the average Australian House of Representatives' count involves 90-100,000 votes. While equipment similar to note counters is used in post-election check-counting, the distribution of preferences is done entirely by hand and without difficulty. The tales of expensive counting equipment are not true.
If the United Kingdom wishes to continue declaring results on the night, it seems to me this should be achievable without too much effort or expenditure. After all, examining preferences need only be undertaken if no candidate achieves 50%, and the distribution of preferences need only be done to the point where one candidate has a majority of the vote remaining in the count." Antony Green ABC News Australia
7. If you support primaries then support AV because it enables you to choose which candidate a party selects. As Dan Sutton suggests on the LSE website:-
"For me one of the most attractive features of AV is the ability to have implied primaries.
At the moment the debate is focused on the situation that might arise if each party only put up one candidate.
However, there is no reason why a party should not field two or more candidates in the same seat.
That would allow me as a voter to pick which party I preferred and then pick which of their candidates or wings I preferred. I could also choose between supporting a candidate who was a good constituency MP, or one who contributed to national debate or one who firmly voted with the whips as my notion of a good MP struck me.
I could also influence which of the candidates from parties that I don’t get want to hold the seat did well. A left wing Tory might be more likely to get my vote than someone to the far, far left of the Labour Party. The Conservative and Labour Parties could see from the rankings which of their candidates attracted votes.
It would mitigate the situation where local branches are heavily influenced by Central Office or by radicalised factions. There would be nothing to stop a Europhile Conservative standing if she felt that her constituency party had been taken over by a cabal of Euroskeptics, for example. MP’s who did a good job for their constituents could defy the whips knowing that even if they were deselected as an official candidate they could stand on a quasi-party basis and still hope to be returned. Corrupt MP’s could be punished by voters without necessarily hurting the party that they support.
The choice of MP shifts more towards the electorate and away from Party HQ or Local Constituency Offices.
AV with multiple candidates from various parties would allow me as a voter to vote for the person, policies and principles of my choice."
8. "Many Britons already use AV when electing representatives for charities, churches, companies, trade unions, societies and voluntary organisations...
Whether or not they know it, many millions of Britons already have extensive experience of using preferential selection because they have been regular voters in Big Brother, Strictly Come Dancing and The X Factor. They not only understand this form of voting; they enjoy it. The no campaign assumes nevertheless that they are incapable of writing 1, 2, 3 on a ballot".
9. Politicians use AV to elect their own because they know it is more representative, yet want to deny us the chance to use the same system to elect them.
"Labour and the Lib Dems both elect their leaders by AV. Funnily enough, ever since the 1960s, when the Tories started to elect their leaders, they have used either AV or a close cousin. Had they used first past the post in their last contest, the leader of the Tory party would not be David Cameron. It would be David Davis." Points 8 & 9 succinctly put by Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer.
10. AV will reduce the number of safe seats. Safe seats lead to the sort of complacency and corruption we saw during the expenses scandal because most of our MPs currently have 'seats for life'.
Politicians don't want the Alternative Vote because it will make them work harder to win their seats. They will have to win more support right across their constituencies and no longer can they pretend that only their party has all the answers. Parties will have to be more positive about each other and be honest about where they agree so as not to alienate potential preferences of their rival party's voters. In short, AV will change politics and the effect will strengthen over many elections. AV will pull away the shroud of FPTP that obscures what people's real preferences are.
We have this once in a lifetime chance to tell the politicians they are wrong. We need to take it. We are going to be up against the might of the establishment and all the media but people power can prevail. Vote YES on May 5th. See YES to Fairer Votes for more.
Why Say YES to AV?
For the first time in our history, voters in the UK are to be given a choice of voting system. The planned referendum will take place on 5th May 2011.
The Alternative Vote will ensure that every MP has at least 50% support in their constituency. Our present system (First-Past-The-Post) only ensures the largest minority elect our MPs. This can mean as little as 1 in 4 votes counting and the majority of voters being ignored.
The Alternative Vote is as simple as 1,2,3. Instead of just placing an X next to a candidate as at present, the voter gets to rank the candidates in order of their preference. This gives voters far more power and removes the need for 'tactical' voting and having to 'second guess' what others might vote. Voters can now show their real first preference in the knowledge that their second, third choices etc. will not be harmed.
AV is used throughout the world, most notably Australia and Ireland and a version of it is used to elect the London Mayor. It is also used by MPs to elect the speaker and the Labour party to elect their leader. In fact all the UK political parties, Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and others use preferential voting to elect their leaders and for their other internal elections. None of them use First-Past-The-Post.
Isn't it time we had the same say as politicians give themselves? Vote YES to the Alternative Vote in the referendum in May.
Some advantages of the Alternative Vote over our present system
1. EVERY MP needs 50% of the vote to be elected under AV. Presently under 'first-past-the-post' only 1 in 3 MPs achieve this.
2. There will be less 'safe seats'. Currently 70% of seats will never change hands. Politicians will have to campaign harder in more areas to win our support. Safe seats breed corrupt and inept politicians.
3. An end to 'tactical voting'. Voters can show their REAL preferences and not have to worry about wasting their vote or trying to second guess what other people will vote in an desperate attempt to make their vote worth something.
4. AV is more proportional. Long term analysis of elections in Australia show AV awards seats to votes more fairly than first-past-the-post.
5. It is harder for extremists to be elected. The BNP would need 50% of the vote to be elected under AV. As little as 25% support wins them seats under first-past-the-post.
6. Lessens negative campaigning. Parties need second and third preferences of other party supporters, so need to be careful in being too negative about them.
The Alternative Vote will ensure that every MP has at least 50% support in their constituency. Our present system (First-Past-The-Post) only ensures the largest minority elect our MPs. This can mean as little as 1 in 4 votes counting and the majority of voters being ignored.
The Alternative Vote is as simple as 1,2,3. Instead of just placing an X next to a candidate as at present, the voter gets to rank the candidates in order of their preference. This gives voters far more power and removes the need for 'tactical' voting and having to 'second guess' what others might vote. Voters can now show their real first preference in the knowledge that their second, third choices etc. will not be harmed.
AV is used throughout the world, most notably Australia and Ireland and a version of it is used to elect the London Mayor. It is also used by MPs to elect the speaker and the Labour party to elect their leader. In fact all the UK political parties, Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem and others use preferential voting to elect their leaders and for their other internal elections. None of them use First-Past-The-Post.
Isn't it time we had the same say as politicians give themselves? Vote YES to the Alternative Vote in the referendum in May.
Some advantages of the Alternative Vote over our present system
1. EVERY MP needs 50% of the vote to be elected under AV. Presently under 'first-past-the-post' only 1 in 3 MPs achieve this.
2. There will be less 'safe seats'. Currently 70% of seats will never change hands. Politicians will have to campaign harder in more areas to win our support. Safe seats breed corrupt and inept politicians.
3. An end to 'tactical voting'. Voters can show their REAL preferences and not have to worry about wasting their vote or trying to second guess what other people will vote in an desperate attempt to make their vote worth something.
4. AV is more proportional. Long term analysis of elections in Australia show AV awards seats to votes more fairly than first-past-the-post.
5. It is harder for extremists to be elected. The BNP would need 50% of the vote to be elected under AV. As little as 25% support wins them seats under first-past-the-post.
6. Lessens negative campaigning. Parties need second and third preferences of other party supporters, so need to be careful in being too negative about them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)